On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 01:26:43AM -0400, Clemm, Geoff wrote:
> I believe I was the one that originally suggested we allow
> updating the owner with a PROPPATCH. I have seen the error
> of my ways (:-). So unless there really is someone that
> feels this functionality is important, I believe that the
> principle of "you aren't
> done until there is nothing left to cut" says to take it out.
I am beginning to seriously disagree with the whole notion of "cut
everything until there is nothing left to cut."
You are taking it to the extreme, leaving a specification that is obtuse,
hard to understand, and requires a half-dozen readings just to figure out
the subtleties and interactions between the elements, such that you can
*infer* what should have been outright specified.
Cutting features is great. Creating obtuse specifications is absurd.
If you want a *STANDARD*, then it must be obvious to *all* implementors what
the standard should be. If one out of twenty people can figure out ALL of
the implications and inferences to implement the "standard", then you simply
DON'T have a standard. You've only created a guide. The other 19 people
implemented something wrong because they couldn't grok the darned document.
I'm not making a statement on the <owner> thing. Instead, I'm arguing that
your policy is erroneous. It needs to be tempered.
[ I believe this applies more to the DeltaV spec than the ACL spec (I
haven't read the ACL spec lately); the DeltaV spec is currently a very
opaque document because of the "say it once; anything more is redundant"
attitude taken towards it. ]
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/